Your answer is like answering the question, "How long is a piece of string?", by answering that it's twice as long as half of its length. It tries to be clever by looking for a loophole, but just misses the point.

Yes, hugs work.

A seemingly irrelevant reference to Ohm's law somehow answers the question. Okay then.

One pill makes you larger — Bitter Crank

The blue pill, right?

So do you agree or disagree with what I said, or do you think the options are either being nicey nicey or being insulting. — Coben

Clearly I disagree with what you said insofar as I disagree with your false accusation that I had put forward a false dilemma.

Is it possible to be respecful without being nicey nicey and giving thumbs up and without being insulting? — Coben

This relates to my own thinking on respect, because asking me that question insults my intelligence.

cause I don't see anything in here...

"If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with"

about using emoticons. Maybe he said it elsewhere.

Maybe it wasn't a false dilemma, perhaps it was a strawman. — Coben

You appear to have completely lost track of things. It obviously definitely wasn't a straw man, because obviously I obviously wasn't trying to represent the quoted text by Terrapin Station with the example I gave of a possible way of thinking about respect relating to smiling and giving a thumbs up, obviously, obviously, obviously. The reference I made to the member above was to the member above, not to the member I had quoted.

Re: my comment in the other thread. You didn't have to be nicey nicey to me here, but there's no reason to say 'speak dumb' here. — Coben

Of course there's reason to use that term here, otherwise I wouldn't have used it here. Look, I'm not going to sugarcoat my language for your sake. An example of speaking dumb would be to call left "right" and falsehoods "truths". If I think you're speaking dumb, I'll say so.

Now you made up a description of the earth as a hexagon, one for which you have no pragmatic uses, I assume, as if this showed that pragmatic truth is a poor theory. We know that Newtonian notions of absolute space, for example, and absolute motion, are not correct, in some correspondance theory of truth. Einstein took that away. However Newton's truths are incredibly effective. I think it useful to consider them true. and who knows, maybe someone will override Einstein. — Coben

No, it was hypothetical, a thought experiment, where you're supposed to assume that the hexagonal Earth theory is of pragmatic use. Obviously I wasn't giving a real world example, obviously.

Obviously.

You think your ideas about truth eliiminate having false truths?

Your epistemology is infallible? — Coben

We're not talking about epistemology, we're talking about metaphysics. My epistemology is fallible. But how can something not be true if it corresponds with reality, thereby making it so?

No, it's most definitely not a false dilemma simply to state that people think of respect differently, which they do, and to state my disagreement with the idea that superficial shows of affection, like smiling and giving a thumbs up, are what's most important about - or are the key defining features of - respect.

...obviously.

But it's a false dilemma. You can keep hold of the importance you see in predictive power and usefulness without fighting a losing uphill battle against ordinary language with regard to what you call true. There's nothing pragmatic about speaking dumb when you don't have to, and when doing so raises more problems than it solves. And you are faced with massive problems, because your theory doesn't rule out what we could call false-truths, like a hexagonal shaped Earth, which under your barmy theory of truth would qualify so long as it was useful and had predictive power, even though Earth isn't in fact hexagonal.

He said it was only true with regards to utility. The only way to see if it is true is related to utility. There is no knowing something is true without it having utility. It has to predict something, lead to something.

I think you are interpreting 'utility' to mean something beyond this. Like it has to be a valuable tool or something. The fact must effectively tunction in predicting something. That is its truth. — Coben

You're mixing up truth with epistemological methods. What is it that you want to talk about? I naturally thought that it was the former, given that the original proposition that I was replying to was worded explicitly about truth itself, not any epistemological method. And those last few sentences are confused. You're just calling some usefulness or predictive power related to a fact, "truth", but that's not truth, that's just usefulness or predictive power. Just call it what it is, not what it's not. Truth is simply: Is that so? Yes.

Typical philosophy enthusiast. Trying to be novel and overcomplicating things. Truth is fine the way it is. It makes sense. It works. It can be understood. Don't try to reinvent the wheel.

I'm presuming in this that you're arguing the "truth-maker" here is correspondence with reality? That's fine when the subject matter is empirical, as with science, but here we're talking about metaphysical propositions. One of which would be that "truth" is correspondence with reality, which would be a required foundation for the principle above. — Isaac

Yes, that's what truth is. Truth doesn't require utility. Were you talking about something else?

A method is a way of proceeding in activities. It may be supported by a system of guidelines, rules or something like that. That a specified activity has produced favourable results may be cited as justification for the method, only after the fact. Since this cited success is necessarily posterior to proceeding into the activities employing the method, it is impossible that this is what supports the method. To account for what supports the method is to account for the foundation of its existence. What supports the method is what inspires one to proceed into the activity employing the method, and this is necessarily prior to the success of the method, as a cause of its success. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh dear. You're doing that thing again where you speak all funny and come up with ad hoc justifications.

The scientific method has been widely applied and has produced vast and seriously impressive results. That's what supports it. I do not care that you can come up with some sophist logic in order to say that, no, actually that doesn't support it, and therefore, hurrah, Platonic metaphysics is fandabbydosey.

If you want respect, treat people with respect. And not just the people you agree with. — Terrapin Station

Although people think of respect differently. The member above seems to think that respect is most importantly about all of the superficial nicey-nicey stuff. A smile here, a thumbs up there. I very much do not think of respect in that way.

You and I have agreed about the importance of being frank with people:

"Definitely some people you know are going to think you're an idiot sometimes. If they don't tell you that, they're not being honest with you".

Those are your words.

It's not about how useful the resultant fact would be if it corresponded with reality. It's about how useful the theory about reality actually is. The theory that the earth is flat would not be useful for navigation because distances would not take account of the curvature of the earth. In my view, neither the earth, nor flat, nor sphere, nor shape are real, they're all distinctions we draw because of their utility. I could claim the earth was flat in non-eucildean space. It might even turn out to be coherent to talk about flat objects within curved space if someday we have a different understanding of space-time.

I really do understand your concern about wishy-washy ideas making into common parlance on relativist grounds, but I don't see it being a problem if we're strict about our evidence requirements for utility. — Isaac

None of what you just said has anything to do with truth, so it is missing the point. I was criticising the proposition which you previously mentioned, that "truth itself is only a meaningful notion with regards utility". No, it isn't. It is meaningful without that, as I demonstrated with my example. You've got the statement, and you've got the truth-maker. That's what makes truth meaningful. That's the bare minimum. Whether it is useful matters in a different context, but it isn't necessary for there to be truths.

OK, but metaphysics is a necessary support for any epistemology, and even the claim that it is not necessary is itself metaphysics. So any "critical method of examining the world" must be supported by metaphysics. If Platonic metaphysics provides a better support than modern metaphysics then Wayfarer is correct to value Platonic metaphysics in that way. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's supported by the vast results it has produced, which Platonic metaphysics hasn't come anywhere near to producing.

Why you should think what you said above is 'an answer' beats me! :smile: — fresco

Why not?

You can't divide 8 volts by 2 ohms because you can't convert volts to ohms since volt and ohm units do not measure the same quantity.

You can divide 8 apples amongst 2 people by giving them each some of the 8 apples.

Then what, pray tell, is philosophy? — Pattern-chaser

There's what it is, and what it should be. What it is, is largely a parody of itself.

Actually it has to matter if it is useful. A fact that has no predictive value is meaningless.

[...] — Coben

Yes, out of context, it does matter. But by taking what I said out of context, you're no longer addressing my point, which was that it doesn't matter in terms of whether or not it's true.

A figure with similar sides and 90° angles is a square, a featherless biped is a man, a door without a knob is a wall, and a tiny toothless cat with no arms or legs is a slug.

And Banno is an old goat.

No, no, no. Look, let's start off simple, shall we? The statement, "Planet Earth is not flat", is true, yes? It's true because Earth is not flat. That's a fact. Is it useful? Doesn't matter. The objective measure, the truth-maker, is the fact, the shape of Earth, not how useful it is. If it was useful for Earth to be flat, or triangular, or hexagonal, that wouldn't make it so. It would not then be true.

I have seen no impressive modern metaphysics, when compared to the ancients. Can you provide an example? We are talking about metaphysics, are we not? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm talking about a critical method of examining the world, irrespective of whether or not you would class it as metaphysics, and I'm contrasting it with Platonic metaphysics, and I was questioning the worth that Wayfarer spoke of in regard to Platonic metaphysics in light of this. That's when you decided to chip in. In political terminology, I would say that Wayfarer is a reactionary: decrying modernity and showing favouritism towards an ancient metaphysics.

I usually don't ask in forums if I can google things myself. I'm clearly not satisfied by the answers on google and thought that this would need more than math to be explained. Hope that helps. — Alan

The answer I found online is that you can't convert volts to ohms since volt and ohm units do not measure the same quantity.

Maybe I don't understand why E=mc2, and am not satisfied with the answer, but is that philosophy? Maybe if I was more of a genius than Einstein it would come closer to being philosophy, but it would probably just mean that I need to learn more.

I conclude that the behaviour of atheists and anti-religious posters is not anywhere near as bad as the denialism and apologetics of those in support of Christianity.

Agreed, pretty lame none the less. My point is, its ignorance (of logic and the new testament Shimshir, Im not making a generalisation about you being an ignorant person about everything) rather than delusion. Ignorance at least can be corrected, I have no remedy for delusion. — DingoJones

I'm not so sure how accurate it is to put it down to ignorance. That seems like letting him off the hook. I think that there's an element of deliberateness to it, like with my statements in response to his. He must surely know how it sounds, but it's like he's trying to be a clever clogs contrarian.

Ok, but surely you see how (and why, obviously) he is using a diluted definition from which his point follows? Wrong, but not non-sensical. What I mean is, his point follows from his admittedly faulty way of defining “Christian” but thats not the same as the contradictory or nonsense you are comparing it to.
You understand the point he is trying to make right? He is making a no true Scotsmen fallacy, but not spouting complete nonsense. — DingoJones

Yes, I get that. But it's still really lame. I could do exactly the same thing with those statements I made in response.

No, like an asshole I just jumped into the middle of your discussion. Not sure Ive ever interacted with Shamshir tbh, I lose track of the names. I had a list going of people not to bother talking to but like an asshole, I lost it. — DingoJones

It's worth drawing attention to them, so here they are, in all their "glory":

...physics and chemistry and music are in essence religions. — Shamshir

Spiders and flies and ants are in essence fish.

Point of fact, the crusades and inquisition were akin to viking raids. Kill and pillage.
They weren't religious.
They weren't christian. — Shamshir

Point of fact, the North Pole and the South Pole aren't places. They aren't cold.

...the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion. — Shamshir

The Queen's role as constitutional monarch has nothing to do with royalty.

ok but why though :rofl: — Ariel D'Leon

I forgot to put on my reading glasses.

Or I didn't, and the whole thing was actually a joke. But not just a joke: a joke making reference to an example used throughout the history of Western philosophy of an unsatisfactory definition of the term "human being", which, more generally, is the problem you touch upon in your opening post.

Although it was the former. I just forgot to put on my reading glasses.

Have you read the Bible? It calls for both, why is your interpretation the one true Christian view? — DingoJones

Have you seen some of the things he's been coming out with? I'd much rather a bit of the harsh rhetoric that's being complained about here than the outlandish nonsense that he's been producing.

"The North Pole isn't cold!", "The Queen has nothing to do with royalty!", "Spiders are essentially fish!". :roll:

They weren't Christian since Christianity doesn't solicit war - it calls to love your enemies. — Shamshir

They were Christian, whether you like it or not. There have been many wars of religion over Christianity. Christianity has blood on it's hands. In fact, it's positively drenched in the stuff.

Point out the examples that are wrong. — Shamshir

No.

Read the fine print, kiddo.
It has more to do with politics.

You're mouthing off gibberish before the statement's even sunk in. — Shamshir

I wasn't addressing that part, genius. I was addressing your false and absurd claim that the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion. You're also wrong to say that the Crusades and the Inquisition weren't religious or Christian. They obviously were. And you're also wrong that physics and chemistry and music are in essence religions. You're the one talking gibberish. You're attention seeking through outlandish claims, it seems.

Maybe it's because Christian morality is just right? — Shamshir

It isn't. And a few examples here and there which I might agree with won't be enough to make it just right, so don't bother going down that road.

Either way, that has more to do with politics than religion, so again it's the same as how the papacy's power crutch has nothing to do with religion. — Shamshir

Don't be absurd, of course it has something to with religion. And that's an understatement. Papal primary is an ecclesiastical doctrine.

And this isn't the first time that you've said something false and absurd, either. The Crusades and the Inquisition were very much religious, and very much Christian.

Wrong site, s. Back on your meds and put on your reading glasses. — tim wood

Sorry, I thought this was KFC. (Or KFFB, as I like to call it).

You're the one reducing life to a "growth-through-adversity" game, I understand that's how you see life, but understand that that's not how many people see life. — leo

Yep, that's the standard one-sided rhetoric you'll get from them.

I've been looking through this thread, and this phrase comes up a lot. Anyone care to explain what a "yet to be born child.." of a non-pregnant woman even is? — Swan

It's purely hypothetical speculation. That's what it is.

Featherless bipeds, anyone?

I live in a society that is not desperately religious, I don't feel very strongly about all this 'God' stuff - the concept seems pretty unlikely, but all things are possible - and I don't think it is useful to define oneself as 'anti-' anything. — iolo

I disagree. I'm okay with describing myself as anti-religious in some important respects. I do feel strongly about some of the claims which are made. There are some claims which I don't treat with mere indifference. It actually offends me when someone doesn't think something through intelligently enough or tries to muddy the waters when I think that they can and should do better than that. A good example would be the false equivalence between religious texts and historical accounts that was recently made by a member of this forum in a separate discussion. Don't try to justify religion by dragging credible academic fields through the mud.

It wasn't prominent though. Socrates, and Plato, were two people who expressed dissatisfaction with the sophistry which was prominent at the time. Aristotle attempted to resolve some of the problems raised by Plato, so he has been often quoted. Now Aristotle has dropped from the forefront of metaphysics. And similar sophistry has made a resurgence and is abundant today, so there is a real need for Platonic dialectics. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well obviously nothing is prominent until it becomes so, and clearly it became so. Plato founded an academy which lasted hundreds of years. He is considered by many to be the most influential of philosophers. And I only brought up Aristotle because he has more in common with the prevalent methodology of critical examination than Plato, which gives reason to question why anyone would show favouritism towards Platonic metaphysics when it's outdated and has fallen out of fashion, so to speak. And also left unaddressed was my point about the impressive results which have been brought about through modern methods which ancient Platonic philosophy would have no hope of coming anywhere close to matching. Clearly Aristotle had more of the right idea in the way that he approached learning about the world, and perhaps doubly so for Democritus, who was way ahead of his time. What good is some allegory about a cave? That's probably done more harm than good. And being better than the sophists isn't all that impressive in the bigger picture.

It hasn't been forgotten, because the books are plentiful and many read them. Some people though, do not, and therefore do not learn platonic metaphysics. It hasn't been superseded because the issues raised have not been resolved. — Metaphysician Undercover

But evidently it's not treated quite the same now as it was back in its heyday, which was kind of the point. I wasn't implying that no one reads the books or that we have all of the answers. It has very largely been superseded, because it has lost prominence and a different methodology which has more to do with his pupil, Aristotle, and some who came before him such as Democritus, has largely taken over. And it has taken over for good reason. Just look at all of the progress we've made which we would not have otherwise made if we had remained stuck on the ancient philosophy of Plato.

Take back control. Let's decide for ourselves who is deserving of being saved from drowning.

Wait, you're saying you disagree with me in this polite, rational manner? I feel diminished. God is real! God is love! — Coben

Damn, I must have lost concentration for a moment there. It's all Baden's fault. I don't know why it's Baden's fault right now, but I'll think of a reason later.

I think if the person espoused racist views by presenting arguments in favor of their positions, other people should respond by pointing out the weaknesses in those arguments. — Coben

I'm glad that the owner of this site, along with the rest of the site staff, do not agree with you insofar as this forum is concerned. That would be against the guidelines, and I would expect to see the racist views deleted and the member expressing them to be banned, or at least dealt with as the site staff see fit.